linux-kernel - Re: aio is unlikely

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 9 May 2007 15:18:31 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	suparna@...ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: aio is unlikely

On Wed, 09 May 2007 18:06:58 -0400
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote:

> > -#define in_aio() !is_sync_wait(current->io_wait)
> > +#define in_aio() (unlikely(!is_sync_wait(current->io_wait)))
> 
> Please revert.  Workload-dependent "likelihood" should not cause 
> programmers to add such markers.
> 
> This is a common misunderstanding about unlikely() and likely().  The 
> branch prediction used for each assumes 99% unlikely or 99% likely, 
> which is not true at all for workload-dependent code.
> 
> Even if only 1% of Linux users use AIO, for that 1%, the 'unlikely' 
> marker causes repeated branch mispredictions.
> 
> likely() and unlikely() should be used for cases where code is 
> likely/unlikely for EVERYBODY.

a) disagree with the above

b) if in_aio() ever returns true we do

	printk(KERN_ERR "%s(%s:%d) called in async context!\n",
		__FUNCTION__, __FILE__, __LINE__);

   so I sure hope it's unlikely for all workloads.
	
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/